Cox v. Cox (108 Ohio St. 473, 1923)

By the Court.

The plaintiff in error, Fred G. Cox, instituted his action in the court of common pleas of Hamilton county against Murtice Cox, the defendant in error, for a divorce. On January 27, 1920, the court of common pleas, as shown by its journal entry of that date, found that the allegations of the petition were not supported by the evidence and that the plaintiff was not entitled to a divorce as therein prayed, and thereupon dismissed the plaintiff’s petition at his costs.

On the following day, to-wit, January 28, 1920, the plaintiff in that action filed his motion asking the court to set aside the judgment dismissing the petition, on the ground that the divorce proceeding had come on for hearing on November 6, 1919, at the conclusion of which the court had announced its decision, granting the plaintiff a divorce, and that relying thereon plaintiff had again married; that the court lost jurisdiction of the subject of the action and of the parties and had no power or authority to enter said judgment of dismissal January 27, 1920.

The court of common pleas found that said motion was not well taken and overruled the same, whereupon error was prosecuted to the Court of Appeals to reverse the action of the lower court in refusing to set aside its former order. Thereafter the Court of Appeals heard the cause and found that there was no error apparent upon the record in the proceeding in the court of common pleas, wherein the motion to set aside the judgment entered by that court January 27,1920, had been overruled, whereupon error was prosecuted to this court.

In this case there was no entry of a judgment prior to that of January 27, 1920, and apparently no application was made for a mmc pro time entry of any judgment or decree claimed to have been announced by the trial court prior thereto. It has been definitely decided by this court that a court speaks through its journal and that a judgment is not rendered until it is reduced to a journal entry. Industrial Commission v. Musselli, 102 Ohio St., 10, 130 N. E., 32.

Hence we find no error in the action of the Court of Appeals in affirming the order of the trial court, wherein that court overruled the motion to vacate the judgment of dismissal of the divorce proceeding, on the ground that it was a valid subsisting judgment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Wanamaker, Bobinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.